Cc-uk mailing list

[Christian.Ahlert AT oii.ox.ac.uk]

Understood and agreed! But - and this might lead away from the 
narrow task to dicuss the draft license at hand and to make it as 
good as we can - this goes back to the question of how to treat the 
original US license. 

I totally agree that compatibility in between contries and 
jurisdictions should be one of the most important goals, but do we 
not end up - under the current system - with 100 different national 
implementations of the CC license anyways? 

I mean we all take the US-license as a starting point and then try 
to port in into UK, German, Japanese etc. law. So my point is: 
what is more important, the spirit of the license and as much 
compatibility as possible (given the national restrictions), or being 
as close as possible to the US example? Maybe that's the same 
anyways... Or should we use a simpler global template (I think this 
was proposed by David Vaver?)

--Ch
    


Am 13 Jul 2004, um 14:27 hat Cory Doctorow geschrieben:

> My feeling is that a licenses that breaks compatibility with the CC-US
> license could do a lot of harm:
> 
> * New works will not be able to freely mix material from the US and UK
> licenses (especially problematic if share-alike is chosen -- if I mix
> a CC-UK share-alike and a CC-US share-alike work, what's the license
> of the resulting work?)
> 
> * Creators will have to decide if they want to grant the UK freedoms
> or the US freedoms -- which means that a creator in the US might
> choose a UK license or vice-versa: we're trying to simplify the
> licensing process, not complexify it, and 100 different national
> implementations of the CC license invites a combinatorial explosion of
> license confusion
> 
> * Commenwealth countries like Canada, India, etc with legal systems
> descended from the UK's will model their licenses on the UK license,
> which means that this has the danger of bifurcating the license into
> US and commonwealth splits
> 
> On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:17 PM, Christian Ahlert wrote:
> 
> > Okay! Here a question from a non-lawyer, no-clue person about 
> > copyright.
> > Why (Rob) does the UK-license need to resemble so closely the 
> > US-license (as
> > you seem to imply)? Its clear to me that it needs to follow the
> > "spirit" and the "intention" of the US license...
> >
> > Best
> > --Ch
> >
> >
> > Christian Ahlert
> > www.oii.ox.ac.uk
> > Oxford Internet Institute
> > www.ahlert.org
> > +44(0)1865 287 203
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > [mailto:cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Rob Myers
> > Sent: 13 July 2004 12:58 To: Cory Doctorow Cc: Prodromos Tsiavos;
> > cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft
> >
> > IANAL, I'm nothing to do with CC.
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 01:34PM, Cory Doctorow <cory AT eff.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Remove any mention of the Author from any new Version or larger
> >>> piece in which the Work is included, if the Creator requests.
> >>
> >> Somewhere above this term in the license, we need something that
> >> says that this doesn't derogate from fair dealing rights to
> >> criticise, etc...
> >
> > I do see your point but this is from the original CC-2.0 license. I
> > think it was part of a fudge to keep those of us who wanted to keep
> > a nonattribution license happy, or more probably to make sure that
> > your name doesn't appear on a porn collection that includes two
> > lines of your work. :-)
> >
> >>> Allow the use of technological measures ? e.g., digital
> >>> watermarking or encryption devices ? to control use of or access
> >>> to the Work or any version of it.
> >>
> >> I hate DRM as much as the next person, but this is overly broad. If
> >> I create a private community for me and my friends to circulate our
> >> derived works, and I passowrd-protect it and encrypt its outputs,
> >> I'll be in violation of this term. Why do we need this?
> >
> > This is from the original CC-2.0 . We need it so people can't lock
> > CC content behind a DRM barrier, making the license ineffective in
> > practice. This would be an example of Lessig's replacement of legal
> > enforcement with technological enforcement...
> >
> > - Rob.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cc-uk mailing list
> > Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cc-uk mailing list
> > Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk
> >
> 


Christian.Ahlert AT oii.ox.ac.uk
Thoughts- Themes - Tinkerings www.ahlert.org
Oxford Internet Institute 
+44 (0)1865 287 203